3 Leaders in a group - too many?

[Gothire]

My current PCs are:

Eladrin Tactical Warlord
Longtooth Shifter Predator Shaman
Human Infernal Warlock
Genasi Greatweapon Fighter
Human Orb Wizard

We used to have an Elven two-weapon Ranger until his player left the campaign and was replaced by the Shaman.

The problem is that the wizard player never really wanted to be a wizard; she wanted to be a bard, but at the time we started the campaign PH2 wasn't out yet, and the group needed a controller. Lately she's been seeming unhappy with being the wizard, but because the party already has two leaders, the other PCs (as well as me as DM) have been encouraging her to stay as a wizard.

However, it seems to me to be unfair to force her to keep a character she's not interested in. On the other hand, it's not fair to the other PCs to make combats take three times as long and be less exciting because the PCs never run out of HP and deal less damage.

So, has anyone run or played in a 5-person group with three leaders and no controller? What was it like? Any DMs have tips for running combats that are still exciting, even with constant PC healing? Any advice or thoughts would be appreciated.

 

[Ace32]

Wouldn't the party run out of healing surges eventually? I speak entirely on theory here, I haven't run a party like you are suggesting.

I understand the concern about the heal-a-thon, but I imagine at the point you reach 3 leaders, you've really hit diminishing returns for the group on the healing factor, even considering powers that don't rely on healing surge expenditures.

If anything, it may encourage the leaders to diversify and play up their other abilities some. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Mengu]

Why does she want to play a bard? Because she wants to be a leader/healer class? Or because she wants to tell tales, sing songs, and fast talk her enemies? If it's the latter, perhaps she could be convinced to play a half-elf rogue with bardic dilettante? This might be sufficient bard flavor and great synergy with the fighter and warlord.

If it's the former, then you could have a discussion in the group and see if one of the other leaders wants to step into a different role.

Three leaders can work with some tweaks from the DM, but is generally too many. Running out of healing surges can be prevented, especially with a bard around, but the concern might be everyone trying to hand out power bonuses and not enough people to utilize them. Leaders thrive when there are more strikers and defenders around. Of course this might be remedied if some of the leaders are built more as strikers, but still won't be quite as enjoyable as giving a rogue combat advantage or a ranger +4 damage.

 

[chitzk0i]

Well, if the warlord pairs off with the fighter for handing out basic attacks and the shaman similarly pairs off with the warlock, then there could be room for the bard to do light control work or spot healing. Bards are very versatile an d have powers with all kinds of effects, so if you build it right you can go a lot of different ways with it.

 

[Starfox]

I think the issue is not so much 3 Leaders as it is 3 leaders + a defender. 3 leaders will have stuff to do as long as the other team members actually take damage - but defenders shut down damage. Then again, a greatweapon fighter is pretty much a striker anyway, so it might be fine.

My team is currently 2 Defenders, a Leader, and a Striker. That is too much in the way of defense. Fights get a bit boring, and very safe. With 3 leaders and a defender, you might suffer the same thing.

That said, I'd never force a player to play something she didn't want to play.

 

[Benlo]

Just as long as they don't ALL focus on healing, it won't be overkill. Some light Controller-style work is never unwelcome. Besides, Bards are just pretty fun to play, at least I've always thought so.

 

[Jhaelen]

Well, one of my 4e groups has three leaders (bard, cleric, warlord). It's a group of seven, though, and they also have a wizard (the other three are a fighter, a barbarian, and a ranger).

I think it should work fine, though, as long as the leaders focus on different things. Without a wizard (controller), minions may be slightly more effective which is probably actually a good thing.
Focussing fire becomes more important for the monsters and leaders should be the preferred targets.

I'm pretty convinced that with all the various options that are currently available in 4e any party can be made to work well. Be sure to read up on the advice in the DMG about missing roles and you should be fine.

 

[Benlo]

Bards and Warlords are sometimes said to be good secondary leaders, anyhow. Now, if you had 3 clerics, then it might be less optimal.

 

[Nymrohd]

Or you could let the wizard retool to Bard/Wizard hybrid. Int bards are pretty "controllery" and the best part of wizard is the dailies which she can still pick (plus an area attack at-will I guess, and given this is a human she'll still have three of those). Heck pick some illusion wizard powers from AP and you are set.

 

[Wepwawet]

Or you could let the wizard retool to Bard/Wizard hybrid. Int bards are pretty "controllery" and the best part of wizard is the dailies which she can still pick (plus an area attack at-will I guess, and given this is a human she'll still have three of those). Heck pick some illusion wizard powers from AP and you are set.

This.
Don't forget that Bards already are secondary controllers, and your player can build it to emphasize the controlling aspect.